5 ms·

It states that there are 10% less glaciers in Switzerland than 2 years ago. So they have melted significantly. It fits the climate alarmism that sells papers

It states that there are 10% less glaciers in Switzerland than 2 years ago. So they have melted significantly. It fits the climate alarmism that sells papers and makes people think the world is ending. The amount of ice on Earth oscillates with the Milankovitch cycles and occasionally increases or decreases rapidly with major volcanic eruptions and cosmic impacts and sun activity. The last increase in ice was the so called "little ice age" (1300-1850). I do not believe that any amount of glacier melting is out of the ordinary for Earth. To me the only value articles like this provide is distributing observations of current ice levels and trends. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycl... https://www.science.smith.edu/climatelit/the-effects-of-the-little-ice-age https://www.science.smith.edu/climatelit/the-effects-of-the-...

chimprich 3y ago
I am amused by the way climate deniers love to cherry-pick sources like NASA to give themselves a superficial veneer of scientific credibility. From the very page you reference about Milankovitch cycles there's a link to "Why Milankovitch Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming" -> https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-m...
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  No need to call me names for providing evidence that supports my opinion that humans aren't doing a damn thing to change the climate for good or bad. If you disagree that's fine. I find Milankovitch cycles and catastrophic events explain enough historical climate change that I can use it as a baseline for what to expect in the future. The climate has changed drastically over millennia without any human influence. It is irrational hubris to look at the small slice of time since industrialization and say "aha, we did something different and the ice is melting it must be our fault". The ice was already melting at an unknown rate. Saying we caused it is a post hoc rationalization. I do not ascribe to the belief that humans are a scourge on the planet and we should do everything we can to undo our sins of using energy to improve the lives of billions of people globally. Since the start of the industrial revolution humans have raised atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 410ppm. A change in atmospheric fraction of CO2 from 0.028% to 0.041%. Plants require 150ppm CO2 to survive and grow significantly better in concentrations around 1000ppm. This is why greenhouses increase CO2 levels inside. Higher atmospheric CO2 means more plants to photosynthesize it. The argument for human caused climate change and that we must do something about the changing climate is simply unconvincing to me. If you are worried about CO2 emissions we are improving on that front by using cleaner fuels like natural gas instead of coal. If we used nuclear we could reduce CO2 emissions even further.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    I wager that over the next century, more human lives will be harmed by efforts to counter climate change than will be by the changing climate itself. The WMO estimates[0] that over the 50 years from 1970 to 2019, global climate-related deaths dropped to one-third. Not one-third per capita; one-third in absolute number of deaths, even as the world population more than doubled. This can be mostly attributed to the rising standard of living in developing countries, through the use of cheap energy from fossil fuels, which lets people better master their environment. On the other side, we have the example of Sri Lanka, which banned chemical fertilizer (produced from fossil fuels) and pesticides partly out of environmental concerns[1], and is now undergoing widespread hunger. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/viewer/57564/download?file=1267_Atlas_of_Mortality_en.pdf&type=pdf https://library.wmo.int/viewer/57564/download?file=1267_Atla... [1]: https://fee.org/articles/sri-lanka-s-food-crisis-is-man-made-and-demonstrates-the-danger-of-faux-environmentalism/ https://fee.org/articles/sri-lanka-s-food-crisis-is-man-made...
    - Daishiman 3y ago
      I cannot imagine a more intellectually dishonest position than this one which willfully ignoring the vast and accelerating scale of change in the global climate system.
      - gottorf 3y ago
        A "vast and accelerating scale of change" that heretofore, as evidenced by data, yielded no climate-related burden on humanity. Atmospheric CO2 went from ~280ppm pre-Industrial Revolution to ~325ppm in 1970 to ~410ppm in 2019[0], during which time we 10x'd the number of humans and as I stated, reduced the human toll on the climate by over 6x in the past 50 years. But sure, call me intellectually dishonest in the absence of any evidence; without which your position is just another Malthusian or Ehrlichian doomsday prediction. [0]: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-5/download.table https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-co...
        3y ago
riedel 3y ago
Thankfully your link directly points at the bottom to: https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-m... I would btw agree that a 2 long observation can also be totally attributed to global (!). The weirdest thing is actually might see also areas in Europe getting colder due to global effect (more freshwater in the Arctic). We need to a way to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere . Maybe alarmist articles do their job, then they are good.
Daishiman 3y ago
Very nice there. Question for you: what do you think increased atmospheric CO2 does as far as absorbing heat energy in the global climate system? And why do you disagree with basic thermodynamics?
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  I don't disagree with basic thermodynamics. I just don't think that CO2 has the outsized effect purported in media. The largest effect of increased CO2 is more plant growth to use the excess carbon.
  - Daishiman 3y ago
    CO2 has a precisely quantifiable effect on the Earth's energy balance can be empirically proven by filling a chamber with CO2 and calculating its ability to absorb heat or computing a physical model. You are disagreeing with thermodynamics, you're just insufficiently knowledgeable to understand it. The effects of CO2 to are exactly understood. The only debate amongst climate scientists is how that heat energy is distributed and how it affects other factors like albedo from ice and clouds, which has uncertainties but bounded uncertainties nontheless.

chimprich 3y ago

I am amused by the way climate deniers love to cherry-pick sources like NASA to give themselves a superficial veneer of scientific credibility. From the very page you reference about Milankovitch cycles there's a link to "Why Milankovitch Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming" -> https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-m...

tastyfreeze 3y ago
No need to call me names for providing evidence that supports my opinion that humans aren't doing a damn thing to change the climate for good or bad. If you disagree that's fine. I find Milankovitch cycles and catastrophic events explain enough historical climate change that I can use it as a baseline for what to expect in the future. The climate has changed drastically over millennia without any human influence. It is irrational hubris to look at the small slice of time since industrialization and say "aha, we did something different and the ice is melting it must be our fault". The ice was already melting at an unknown rate. Saying we caused it is a post hoc rationalization. I do not ascribe to the belief that humans are a scourge on the planet and we should do everything we can to undo our sins of using energy to improve the lives of billions of people globally. Since the start of the industrial revolution humans have raised atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 410ppm. A change in atmospheric fraction of CO2 from 0.028% to 0.041%. Plants require 150ppm CO2 to survive and grow significantly better in concentrations around 1000ppm. This is why greenhouses increase CO2 levels inside. Higher atmospheric CO2 means more plants to photosynthesize it. The argument for human caused climate change and that we must do something about the changing climate is simply unconvincing to me. If you are worried about CO2 emissions we are improving on that front by using cleaner fuels like natural gas instead of coal. If we used nuclear we could reduce CO2 emissions even further.
- gottorf 3y ago
  I wager that over the next century, more human lives will be harmed by efforts to counter climate change than will be by the changing climate itself. The WMO estimates[0] that over the 50 years from 1970 to 2019, global climate-related deaths dropped to one-third. Not one-third per capita; one-third in absolute number of deaths, even as the world population more than doubled. This can be mostly attributed to the rising standard of living in developing countries, through the use of cheap energy from fossil fuels, which lets people better master their environment. On the other side, we have the example of Sri Lanka, which banned chemical fertilizer (produced from fossil fuels) and pesticides partly out of environmental concerns[1], and is now undergoing widespread hunger. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/viewer/57564/download?file=1267_Atlas_of_Mortality_en.pdf&type=pdf https://library.wmo.int/viewer/57564/download?file=1267_Atla... [1]: https://fee.org/articles/sri-lanka-s-food-crisis-is-man-made-and-demonstrates-the-danger-of-faux-environmentalism/ https://fee.org/articles/sri-lanka-s-food-crisis-is-man-made...
  - Daishiman 3y ago
    I cannot imagine a more intellectually dishonest position than this one which willfully ignoring the vast and accelerating scale of change in the global climate system.
    - gottorf 3y ago
      A "vast and accelerating scale of change" that heretofore, as evidenced by data, yielded no climate-related burden on humanity. Atmospheric CO2 went from ~280ppm pre-Industrial Revolution to ~325ppm in 1970 to ~410ppm in 2019[0], during which time we 10x'd the number of humans and as I stated, reduced the human toll on the climate by over 6x in the past 50 years. But sure, call me intellectually dishonest in the absence of any evidence; without which your position is just another Malthusian or Ehrlichian doomsday prediction. [0]: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-5/download.table https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-co...
      - 3y ago

riedel 3y ago

Thankfully your link directly points at the bottom to: https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/ https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-m... I would btw agree that a 2 long observation can also be totally attributed to global (!). The weirdest thing is actually might see also areas in Europe getting colder due to global effect (more freshwater in the Arctic). We need to a way to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere . Maybe alarmist articles do their job, then they are good.

Daishiman 3y ago

Very nice there. Question for you: what do you think increased atmospheric CO2 does as far as absorbing heat energy in the global climate system? And why do you disagree with basic thermodynamics?

tastyfreeze 3y ago
I don't disagree with basic thermodynamics. I just don't think that CO2 has the outsized effect purported in media. The largest effect of increased CO2 is more plant growth to use the excess carbon.
- Daishiman 3y ago
  CO2 has a precisely quantifiable effect on the Earth's energy balance can be empirically proven by filling a chamber with CO2 and calculating its ability to absorb heat or computing a physical model. You are disagreeing with thermodynamics, you're just insufficiently knowledgeable to understand it. The effects of CO2 to are exactly understood. The only debate amongst climate scientists is how that heat energy is distributed and how it affects other factors like albedo from ice and clouds, which has uncertainties but bounded uncertainties nontheless.